2020 Elections

[Treehugger]

I find myself worrying quite a bit about Trump (& followers) attempting to somehow not having absentee ballots count. Apparently only 16 states (most not battleground states) allow election officials to get a head start counting mail-in ballots. In all the other states (including most battleground states) mail-in ballots cannot be counted until Election Day, usually after the polls close. So, they will be counted after the in-person ballots.

I know there has already been a blue wave of absentee ballots and have heard that a lot of Trump supporters are holding off until Election Day. So, it looks pretty clear that their votes will be counted first before the blue wave of absentee ballots.

I am worried that Trump (& supporters) will declare victory before all the absentee ballots have been counted and then try to either:

1) stop the absentee ballots from being counted at all

or, if they are counted,

2) use every trick in the book to insist that they are all fraudulent and shouldn't be included in the finally tally.

At this point, I am a lot more worried about these kind of shenanigans than I am about Biden actually losing.

How worried are you about this issue?

Or, better yet, can someone set my mind at ease about this?

[ciao_yall]

I find myself worrying quite a bit about Trump (& followers) attempting to somehow not having absentee ballots count. Apparently only 16 states (most not battleground states) allow election officials to get a head start counting mail-in ballots. In all the other states (including most battleground states) mail-in ballots cannot be counted until Election Day, usually after the polls close. So, they will be counted after the in-person ballots.

I know there has already been a blue wave of absentee ballots and have heard that a lot of Trump supporters are holding off until Election Day. So, it looks pretty clear that their votes will be counted first before the blue wave of absentee ballots.

I am worried that Trump (& supporters) will declare victory before all the absentee ballots have been counted and then try to either:

1) stop the absentee ballots from being counted at all

or, if they are counted,

2) use every trick in the book to insist that they are all fraudulent and shouldn't be included in the finally tally.

At this point, I am a lot more worried about these kind of shenanigans than I am about Biden actually losing.

How worried are you about this issue?

Or, better yet, can someone set my mind at ease about this?

I am concerned. The most help will be:

• ] Strong early signs that Biden absolutely won the election
• Trump's unpopularity in states with R governors, who might be reluctant to side with him in order to try and overturn their own citizen's votes. I'd like to think at the state level, governors tend to be more moderate and bipartisan.
• Judges, who may have been appointed by an R, who still prefer to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than partisanship. (See above)

[mamselle]

In Debate-land, (or No-debate-land), NBC intends to persevere despite strong resistance by its own employee/actor/moderator/anchorfolk:

   https://deadline.com/2020/10/donald-trump-town-hall-actors-showrunners-ask-nbc-move-slot-opposite-abc-joe-biden-mariska-hargitay-j-j-abrams-ryan-murphy-greg-berlanti-ava-duvernay-seth-macfarlane-damon-lindelof-kenya-1234597879/

M. 

[Parasaurolophus]

Biden and Trump both outperformed my expecatations in the town halls yesterday. Biden, especially: I think that was his best live performance to date.

Still wish he was a better candidate, and better on the issues, though.

[mahagonny]

Thoughts about Pence-Harris for your perusal...https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-racial-politics-of-kamala-harriss-performance-style

I predict and also hope that we'll see a day where the obvious is finally recognized, that being that when a male candidate interrupts a female candidate during one of these televised 'debates' it's not because he's mansplaining or she has inferior status by being female, but because that's how these unregulated events get conducted because nobody prevents it.

[dismalist]

Found this on another board some weeks ago:

Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.

:-)

[Parasaurolophus]

Biden started out very strong, lost steam somewhere towards the end, but on the whole did a very good job. I'd say Trump also outperformed expectations, but he started rambling much earlier, and then resorted to the interruption tactic towards the end (which doubtless is part of what threw Biden off a bit). On the whole, a pretty decent illustration of the stark difference between the two.

(But Biden's climate change talk still drives me nuts. It's wholly inadequate wishful thinking. Also: the right to affordable healthcare? Give me a fucking break.)

[kaysixteen]

As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

[Parasaurolophus]

As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

[writingprof]

As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

Declaring something a human right does not summon more of it into existence.  See food, housing, and education for other examples of this phenomenon.  We have a certain amount of healthcare to allot.  Either some will have much, most will have some, and few will have none or all will have less than they want.  "Right to healthcare" thinking leads to rationing, forever and ever, world without end.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Biden's job was to do no harm, and in that way he succeeded. 

Trump's job was to dramatically change how the public sees him, and in that way it would appear that he failed.  This was his last chance to change the narrative and he didn't do it, strongly suggesting that he will go into the election with a very low probability of victory. 

[marshwiggle]

As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

Declaring something a human right does not summon more of it into existence.  See food, housing, and education for other examples of this phenomenon.  We have a certain amount of healthcare to allot.  Either some will have much, most will have some, and few will have none or all will have less than they want.  "Right to healthcare" thinking leads to rationing, forever and ever, world without end.

The idea of universal healthcare does require choices about what services will be covered. However, it guarantees certain services to everyone, which is the point. There will always be very expensive procedures, sometimes experimental and for rare conditions, which could not  be provided to everyone who might benefit. However, the wealthy will always be able to get access to those using their own resources.

[Parasaurolophus]

As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

Declaring something a human right does not summon more of it into existence.  See food, housing, and education for other examples of this phenomenon.  We have a certain amount of healthcare to allot.  Either some will have much, most will have some, and few will have none or all will have less than they want.  "Right to healthcare" thinking leads to rationing, forever and ever, world without end.

Your current system already rations care. Poorly and unjustly.

[writingprof]

There will always be very expensive procedures, sometimes experimental and for rare conditions, which could not be provided to everyone who might benefit. However, the wealthy will always be able to get access to those using their own resources.

Isn't supplemental private insurance illegal in parts of Canada? 

[marshwiggle]

There will always be very expensive procedures, sometimes experimental and for rare conditions, which could not be provided to everyone who might benefit. However, the wealthy will always be able to get access to those using their own resources.

Isn't supplemental private insurance illegal in parts of Canada?

Private insurance is typically for things that aren't covered under public health care. (Different provinces vary somewhat in what is covered. For instance, in Ontario dental care is covered until age 25, after that it would be covered by private insurance.)

There are ongoing debates about what should be covered publicly, but the value is that what is covered publicly is covered for everyone, regardless of employment, age, pre-existing health conditions, etc. And there are no restrictions on where a person has to go for treatment, or which doctors may provide it, etc. No "deductibles", or "co-pays", no bill in the mail, etc.

Wealthy people anywhere go to other countries for treatments unavailable at home for one reason or another. That's always an option.